Perhaps one of Iran’s greatest contributions to
human civilization have been in the realm of ideas: the respect accorded
to diverse nations, peoples, cultures, and religions. When Cyrus the
Great (575-530 BC) founded the
Achaemenid Empire, he laid the basis of government on the basis of tolerance
for diversity and respect for the human rights of all of the citizenry,
irrespective of creed, race or religion. This is based on the recording
of history traced back to 2500 years ago.

There is now a gentleman working hard to re-write
history of Cyrus the Great: Jona Lendering. Lendering argues that all
of the history of Cyrus is a lie and the result of a “conspiracy”.

Jona Lendering’s mission is to rewrite the history of Cyrus the Great and
to label all who question his views as “imperial propaganda of
the late Shah”. His views resemble
the July 15, 2008 writings of Matthias Schulz in Spiegel Magazine which
labelled the historical benevolence of Cyrus the Great as a “hoax”.

Lendering, who runs the widely consulted www.Livius.orgwebsite, claims that the favourable history relating to Cyrus the
Great is simply the “imperial
propaganda of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi”. Lendering further argues
that all who contradict his thesis are “…political
activists” who “…share the
propaganda of the late Shah”. His views are clearly spelt his websites:

While most readers would shake their heads and
dismiss these views as fringe and even bizarre, there is in fact a growing
anti-Iranian history tradition. This can be traced back to 1979, when
the former Pahlavi regime was overthrown. The results of this have become
manifest in recent years, especially in western cinema. These include the movies
“Alexander” and “300”. For an analysis of these consult:

World: Oliver Stone's 'Alexander' Stirs Up Controversy

Golnaz Esfandiari

Dr. Touraj Daryaee

Such pictures portray pre-Islamic Iranians
in the most negative and distorted light by introducing them as demons
and fantastic ogres. These have laid the basis for attacks against the
founder of ancient Iran: Cyrus the Great. These movie productions have
opened the way for possibly the most focused and powerful onslaught
against the core of Iran’s history and identity: the legacy of Cyrus
the Great (575-530 BC).

Spiegel and Daily Telegraph’s
attacking against Cyrus the Great

July 2008 witnessed perhaps the most powerful attack
by western “news” outlets against the history and identity of Iran and
her people. These were Spiegel Magazine and the Daily Telegraph Newspaper’s
inexplicable attacks not only Cyrus the Great, but the historical identity
of the people of Iran:

Cyrus cylinder's ancient bill of rights 'is just
propaganda': A 2500
year old Persian treasure dubbed the world's 'first bill of human rights'
has been branded a piece of shameless 'propaganda' by German historians

1) Cyrus was a brutal and bloodthirsty conqueror
who heartlessly butchered civilians and arbitrarily deported whole populations
by force.

(2) Cyrus’ enlightened policies towards civilians and his human rights policies
are all lies and “propaganda”
concocted by the former Pahlavi regime of Iran in the 1970s

(3) All history as recorded in ancient Greek and Babylonian texts, the Bible
and even archaeology are to be summarily dismissed as “propaganda”.

The writer in Spiegel Magazine, Mathias Schulz has no expertise in Iranian
history. Harry De Quetteville, the writer of the Daily telegraph article is a reporter
with no background whatsoever in the field of Iranian Studies. How then
is it possible that non-experts (who cannot even read or speak Persian,
let alone any Iranian languages) are allowed to publish what are nothing
more than Eurocentric narratives reminiscent of 19th century
colonialist thinking?

The Academic World:
Trying to Re-Write History

It is a fact that ever since the late 1970s, a sparse number of “historians”
have been exerting their best efforts to completely change the history
books regarding Cyrus and his legacy. This can first be traced to Professor
Root who labelled the entire history of Cyrus as “propaganda” (Root, 1979,
p.311). Following in Root’s footsteps came Professor Van der Spek who
in 1982 asserted that “Cyrus introduces
no new policy towards subdued nations…under his responsibility temples
were destroyed, Ecbatana was plundered, after the Battle of Opis Cyrus
carried off the plunder and slaughtered the people” (1982, p.281-282).

The leading lady against Cyrus the Great however
has been Professor Amelie Kuhrt, who completely rejects history itself
by stating unequivocally that “The
assumption that Persian imperial control was somehow more tolerable
than the Assyrian yoke is based, on the one hand, on the limited experience
of one influential group of a very small community which happened to
benefit by Persian policy and, on the other, on a piece of blatant propaganda
…” (1983, p. 94-95).

Root, Van der Spek and Kuhrt are basing their entire
line of reasoning on Grayson’s 1977 translation (or interpretation)
of the Battle of Opis. This “translation” was carefully re-examined
in 2007 at the University of Birmingham, England by Professor Wilfred
G. Lambert. It is worth noting that Grayson had in fact been Lambert’s
student. Lambert demonstrated that his former student (Grayson) had
in fact made a number of blatant linguistic and semantic errors in his
translation of the Battle of Opis.

There is a clear double-standard at work here.
Kuhrt for example consistently ignores every single historical citation
that portrays Cyrus in a favourable light but believes that Grayson’s
“translation” is infallible and provides conclusive “proof” for her
point of view. It is this style of thinking that probably explains why
Lambert’s recent publication is consistently ignored while Grayson’s
erroneous and out of date work keeps getting cited.

These ideas and biased approaches are not taken seriously by the vast majority
of the academics in the field of Iranian Studies. But what about the
wider circle outside the academic domain of Iranian Studies?

It is in this large vacuum, especially the internet where the battle
to re-write the history of Cyrus is being waged. These efforts on the
internet are being spearheaded by the vigorous works of one man: Jona
Lendering.

Jona Lendering:
The history of Cyrus is “the imperial propaganda
of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi”

The Spiegel and Daily Telegraph articles against
Cyrus mentioned before are virtually identical (if not carbon copies)
of the narratives seen on Jona Lendering’s Livius.org website. Since
at least 2006 or earlier (Spiegel and Daily Telegraph published their
articles in July 2008) Lendering’s site has posted the following:

“The cylinder played an important role in the
imperial propaganda of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who in 1971 used
it as symbol of the celebration of what he called the 2,500th anniversary
of the Persian monarchy. A copy was given to the United Nations (text). The Shah tried to prove that the secular Iran
with religious freedom that he wanted to promote had existed before,
and in this context, the Cyrus Cylinder has been called the "world's
human rights charter". This interpretation ignores the stereotypical
nature of the document…However, the idea that the Cyrus Cylinder plays
a role in the history of human rights, has turned out to be quite persistent…”

This link and the content of the Spiegel and Daily
Telegraph articles are virtually identical. There are a number of other
striking parallels between Lendering’s article in his Livius.org website
and the recent Spiegel/Daily telegraph articles. Note the parallels
between the original Livius.org article and Spiegel with respect to
the 2003 Iranian noble-prize winner Shirin Ebadi. Lendering notes in
Livius that:

“…the idea that the Cyrus
Cylinder plays a role in the history of human rights, has turned out
to be quite persistent… quoted by Shirin Ebadi when she accepted the
Nobel Peace Prize in 2003”.

While no one is suggesting that Lendering, Schulz
and De Quetteville have deliberately coordinated or timed their efforts,
the parallels in their writings are vividly striking. This being said,
the Lendering-Thesis as seen in Spiegel and Daily telegraph has yet
to find converts in the western world. Note this commentary by user
“Xander” on the AncientHistory website regarding
the Spiegel/Daily telegraph articles against Cyrus:

“Matthias Schulz’s
article provides no historical evidence what so ever to back his postulates
on the cylinder being a propaganda stunt or the way Babylon was conquered
through bribes, and disregards all the historical facts. It just sounds
like a sour man with baseless accusations to continue the past few decades
of a trend of desperate effort to strip the pride out of nations that
founded the basic rules of civilisation … Talk about propaganda (not
surprisingly coming from Matthias Schulz).”

Wikipedia is a powerful venue. Almost any information
search in the internet witnesses the on-line Encyclopedia coming up
on the top page. It is in this high exposure area where Lendering is
working hard to attack the history of Iran. Since 2006 (or earlier)
Lendering has injected his views into the entry for Cyrus the Great
and his Cylinder:

“The
type and formulation of the cylinder was typically Babylonian and stands
in a Mesopotamian tradition, dating back to the third millennium BC,
of kings making similar declarations of their own righteousness when
beginning their reigns”

Not surprisingly, Lendering is again
the source of the citation added on June 30, just 2 weeksafterSpiegel’sarticle
and 9 daysbefore
theDaily Telegrapharticle. Once again, Amelie Kuhrt is
used as an academic reference, yet one will find no references to Iranologists
such as Professor Richard Nelson Frye who has knowledge of ancient and
modern Iranian languages and has close to five decades of world-class
publications to his credit. This is not surprising as according to the
Lendering-Thesis, any researcher who has anything favourable to say
about Cyrus is simply a follower of the “propaganda
of the late Shah”. This is vividly seen in Lendering’s characterization
of David L. Lewis’ text (God’s Crucible: Islam and the Making of Europe)
in the RomanArmyTalk forum:

“On one point
[Cyrus the Great], Lewis appears
to have believed modern-day propaganda by Iranian royalists and I would not be surprised if some of the information
on p.6 was taken from the Wikipedia.”

Despite penetrations in sections such “As a Charter of Human Rights”, Lendering
has not been very successful. Interestingly Lendering relies on a number
of highly active anti-Iranian supporters in Wikipedia, one of these
being a certain “ChrisO” who
seems to have an almost obsessive need to smear not only Cyrus the Great,
but a confrontational attitude towards all who oppose his/her views
in the Wikipedia. The latter’s views and other apparent Eurocentrists
can be seen in the TalkPage section of the Wikipedia link:

Eurocentrist tactics in Wikipedia are generally
based on three techniques:

1) Ignoring or sidelining any references or researchers
that contradict them (including character assassination)

2) Using (or recruiting) as many sympathetic Wikipedia
users as possible to enforce a point of view

3) Tireless repetition of particular viewpoints

Wikipedia forums are not monitored or refereed
by qualified academics on a full-time basis. Any person (objective or
otherwise) can open an account in Wikipedia, enter themselves into any
topic and start writing or revising that topic. This is exactly what
has occurred on the entries on Cyrus the Great.

Despite these efforts, the followers of the Lendering-Thesis have not
been altogether successful. The reason is simple: one cannot simply
dismiss an entire established line of history (predating the late Shah
by thousands of years) and ignore or sideline Biblical, Greek, Babylonian
and archaeological references. Lendering recently expressed his frustrations
on the romanarmytalk.com forum (January 21st, 2009)

“Many Wiki-articles
are fine, but I would not use the pages on ancient Persia, which have
been hijacked by political activists who think that everyone who does
not share the propaganda of the late Shah (with Cyrus the Great as illuminated
ruler et cetera) is a racist - I am not making this up, there's right
now a petition against me which calls me a racist for precisely the
above-mentioned reason.”

1) Any person who questions his views on the history
of Iran (especially Cyrus are labelled as phantom “political activists”somehow
connected with the “propaganda
of the late Shah”. This is strictly speaking, a conspiracy theory.
In Lendering’s view all Iranian and non-Iranian academics, researchers
and writers who are not convinced by Lendering’s view are somehow tied
to the former Pahlavi regime.

2) He rejects much of the historiography of Iran
and hopes to re-write as much of this possible.

3) Lendering’s anti-Cyrus activities have recently
succeeded in drawing attention from mainstream Iranians. This may explain
why a petition originating in Iran has been quietly circulating since
December 2008:

Lendering offers an interesting explanation as
to the origins of the petition. He explains in the Roman Army Forum
that this is somehow orchestrated by “political activists who …share the propaganda of the late
Shah”:

To understand why Lendering has been labelled as
a “racist”, one is obliged
to examine this gentleman more closely.

Jona Lendering
and Pan-Muslim Fanatics: A kinship of Mind

Perhaps what is most strange is that Lendering’s views on Cyrus the
Great (as well as those seen in Spiegel and the Daily Telegraph) are
almost exactly the same as those seen in the conspiracy theories of
pan-Muslim fanatics. Few westerners are aware that Cyrus
the Great is intensely disliked by pan-Muslim fanatics such as the late
pan-Islamic activist Ayatollah Sadegh Khalkhali (1926-2003).

Sadegh Khalkhali
harbored an intense hatred of Cyrus the Great. Jona
Lendering’s opinions on the character and legacy are identical to those
of the Ayatollah

Khalkhali even published a book in which
he smeared Cyrus the Great with labels such as “… tyrant, a liar…" (Molavi, 2005, p.14).These labels are strikingly identical to those
applied by Lendering, Schulz, and De Quetteville.
Khalkhali also argued that all of the history relating to Cyrus the
Great was a concoction by the late Shah, or as Lendering tirelessly
argues: “imperial propaganda of
Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi”.

As noted by Molavi, Khalkhali "called for the destruction of
the Cyrus tomb and remains of the two-thousand-year-old Persian palace
in Shiraz, Fars Province, the Persepolis" (Molavi, 2005, p.14)
These actions are corroborated by American researcher Elaine Sciolino
who interviewed Ayatollah Majdeddin Mahallati of Shiraz who corroborates
that Khalkhali came to Persepolis with "a
band of thugs" and after a speech in which he linked Cyrus
to the late Shah, tried unsuccessfully to destroy Persepolis (Sciolino,
2000, p.168).

One cannot help but (again) be surprised
as to how and why Lendering has so much in common with the late Ayatollah
Khalkhali when it comes to Cyrus the Great. Ayatollah Khalkhali
reputedly suffered from psychiatric problems, but Lendering is an intelligent,
articulate and educated gentleman. The only explanation as to why Lendering
harbours such views can be summarized in a single concept: Eurocentricism.

De Quetteville expressed the Eurocentric view very
well in his Daily telegraph article on July 2008 by stating that the
history relating to the Cyrus Cylinder is simply a:

“…desire to
claim some eastern roots "when it is so Western in its philosophical
underpinnings… For all the
criticisms of the Cyrus cylinder, it is unlikely to change perceptions
of it in Iran, where Cyrus and the cylinder are regarded with intense
national pride”

Eurocentrist logic is clear: Iran has contributed nothing to civilization
in terms of human rights and Cyrus the Great was no illuminated leader.
All notions of human rights come exclusively from the western hemisphere.

It is no wonder why Iranians across the political
spectrum were unanimously outraged last year (2008) in July. The views
expressed by Lendering, Schulz, and De Quetteville
are binary, linear and simply arrogant. It would seem that intellectual
racism is alive and well. The reasons for the above-mentioned petition
which started in Iran in December 2008 have now become all too clear.

Lendering’s
Travels and Writings

Jona Lendering often travels to Iran and mentions
this in his website:

“As of 2008,
Livius Onderwijs [his school in Amsterdam] has six teachers, about 500-600 students a year, and offers tours to
countries like Italy, Turkey, Iran, and Libya. The field trips help
to etch into the students' minds some of what they've learned at the
school.”

One can only speculate what types of views Lendering wishes to “etch into the students' minds”. It is clear that Lendering
has cultivated close and cordial links with some of Iran’s present authorities
otherwise how could he travel into and out of Iran with such ease?

As noted before, Lendering is a very intelligent man. He has even posted
writings on some Iranian venues such as the Iran Chamber of Commerce.
He has cleverly cultivated some ties with a few excellent Iranian academics,
who are evidently unaware of Lendering’s true intentions. Lendering
is very careful not to offend (what he perceives as) powerful and useful
Iranians that he can use in his quest.

In contrast, Lendering shows a very different face towards what he sees
as “weaker” Iranians. This can be seen very clearly in the User:TalkJona
link in Wikipedia where Lendering expresses a less than polite “tone
of voice” against those who dare question his views of Cyrus the Great.
Note the example below:

These types of statements and behaviour have finally drawn the attention
of Iranians both inside of Iran and among the diaspora. It is important
to note that Lendering in no way whatsoever represents the vast majority
of excellent academics and outstanding scholarship in Europe and North
America. Lendering however is well known through his Livius.org website
and it is with to internet which he hopes to manipulate the mainstream
and academia.

Lendering’s
Mission

Jona Lendering is a man with a clear mission: He wishes to convince academics
and laypersons that the favourable history of Cyrus the Great is entirely
false and simply a concoction by a “propaganda”
conspiracy dated to the reign of the Shah. Lendering’s ambition is to
re-write the history of Cyrus in his own image.

References

Kuhrt, A.
(1983). The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid Imperial Policy. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 25, 83-97.

Saam
Safavi-Zadeh is from Tabriz, Iran and is pursuing his graduate studies
in the study of ancient Iran in France. Anna Djakashvili-Bloehm lives
in France with a keen interest in studying ancient Babylon and Persia.